8/24/2010 - WASHINGTON -- "We are committed to equipping Airmen with the most advanced capabilities available at the earliest time possible," Air Force officials said Aug. 24. "Based on feedback from Airmen, we believe the Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) provides advanced protection to servicemembers while operating outside the wire in Afghanistan. Army (officials), while beginning an aggressive fielding schedule, (are) working with Air Force (officials) to support developing a long-term joint fielding strategy later this year."

(Courtesy of Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs)

Comments

3/6/2011 3:19:41 PM ETI agree we all hate this ABU uniform. Please lets do a 100 swap to the multi cam with higher quality materials.

SSGT DC, Oregon

1/29/2011 9:11:27 AM ETI agree 100 percent get rid of the current uniform and move to a more effective camouflage pattern suited for each region or areas prevailing color scheme. We need to also advocate for a more advanced thermal management material which keeps us cooler in hot weather and wet weather environments. I know every maintainer out there would appreciate cooler body temps on the flight line as well as any security forces member maintaining a optimum core temp while out on patrol. Admin AF personnel will also benefit from improved thermal management. It is a fact when humans are in a optimum core body temp we are all safer and more combat effective.

Al, HAFB

8/30/2010 2:12:16 PM ETSounds like some serious fraud waste abuse. Though it sucks to read about stuff like this, I'm still more concerned with the uncomfortable PT gear we're mandated to wear.

Nick, DC

8/26/2010 2:49:01 PM ETAm I missing something or did the Goldwaters Nichols Act of 1986 mandate that the services work toward jointness? Isn't the recent service-independent trend on uniform development essentially against that law? Why are we wasting money developing 4 different uniforms when we could all adopt an effective multi-cam? It seems as the years advance we are growing further apart as services instead of merging and cooperating as mandated by law. As many have said already heritage is for service dress not utility uniforms. Everyone and I mean everyone has the potential to work outside the wire in this day and age.

Texas Pete, Texas

8/26/2010 1:56:42 PM ETI just read that the Navy had to change its pattern because the Marine siad it was too similar to theirs How about selecting a pattern that works and ignore the BS about being looking different.

AJ Fisher, BAF

8/26/2010 1:18:26 PM ETFINALLY. We have been waiting for Multi-cam for years. Why couldn't we put pockets on our sleeves? Because the Air Force measures your worth through strips not actual combat value. I'm pretty sure some where in the uniform chain they will mess this up and it'll be back to modifying our own uniforms.

Christian, NAFB

8/26/2010 1:13:08 PM ETHilarious You can't make this kind of stuff up. More changes to the changes to the changes. When are we going to start getting this stuff right the first time Now instead of having a BDU and ACU we're going to have the ABU and the OCP with continued limited use of the ACU. One big huge disastrous joke. Who sits in their office thinking this stuff up? How many more needless changes are going to be forced upon us for no good reason?

Eric, Texas

8/26/2010 9:53:07 AM ETThe MultiCam camouflage pattern patented by Crye Precision is designed to blend and reflect some of the surrounding colors of the environment thus blending in with the environment. The new pattern is designed to deceive the human eye and brain to accept the concealed object as part of the background. Furthermore the pattern's complex curved elements are shaped to efficiently maintain concealment by effectively managing scale and contrast at long and close range.The Army is going with it over the ACU for Afghanistan. Guardian Angel has been using it for a couple years as has STS in AFSOC. The problem the pants are 175.00 each and the shirt is 145.00 each...320.00 for one uniform for one Airman what price camouflage and concealment

SMSgt Ret Jim Thede, Nellis AFB

8/26/2010 2:13:12 AM ETAF TSgt said it best. The multicam from what I've seenheard is the best pattern available and we should go with it for both deployed and in-garrison wear. The ABU is ridiculous in its fit function and appearance. I'm all about tradition and think we could use the service dress to maintain our heritage...for the field however get us the best available and throw the ABU in the trash. I still can't believe we didn't just adopt the ACU after the Army payed for the design and testing. Do it right this time Let the Army pay for design and test on the multicam...then go and get it for us. If the AF doesn't have to pay for design and test it shouldn't be anymore expensive than what is already budgeted for individual clothing allowance. Am I missing something here

Jeep, DM

8/25/2010 9:13:14 PM ETGreat another camo pattern All services wore woodland BDU and desert camo DCU for ages only changing the markings and patches. Then we all had to have our own patterns. The digital tiger stripe ABU is worthless as camo unless we're fighting a blind adversary. This was the result of a drive to give Airmen a distinctive uniform. The purpose of camouflage is to NOT look distinctive Multi-cam for all in a uniform that has pockets in the right places and decent boots would be a good thing. But don't buy the line that this one camo pattern will work everywhere. The Marines were smart enough to understand that.

DMPI, Bolling AFB DC

8/25/2010 8:52:59 PM ETThis is funny the AF has already been wearing multi-cams in Afghanistan. It's crazy that it's just now coming out in the news.

TSgt Kerry Thompson, Germany

8/25/2010 6:33:21 PM ETThe dirt and rocks in Afghanistan must be unique.

SSgt Peanut, East Coast

8/25/2010 5:04:55 PM ETI commend AF leadership for looking into multi-cam for our guys. Small teams in AFSOC have been wearing this for a few years already as well as Army SF and other SOF forces. It makes much more sense than the Office camo we are forced to wear currently. Don't go screw it up and try and get a AF specific multi-cam uniform and take the utility out of it like you did the ABU.

TSgt Bill, Deployed

8/25/2010 12:53:51 PM ETThis pattern isn't and shouldn't be considered Afghanistan specific. The multi-cam pattern has proven effective in most of the environments we operate in. This uniform implemented full time would be a huge step toward repairing the faith damaged by forcing the ABU on us.

AF TSgt, Currently Deployed

8/25/2010 12:21:39 PM ETFinally the Air Force leadership is thinking tactically and not traditionally. I hope this is a trend that will continue and ultimately result in the discard of the current impracticle ABUs.

Defender, JBSA

8/25/2010 3:00:41 AM ETThis press release begs more questions than it answers. What is the purpose of the press release? Is there a problem with the pattern?

8/24/2010 7:50:55 PM ETI think we're missing some context here. Why did SECAF release this statement and why now Have there been questions about the OCP that this statement is intended to address

PB, US

8/24/2010 6:41:32 PM ETThe Army decided earlier to research the use of a new pattern and has no started issues multi-cam to all personnel transiting into Afghanistan. The Air Force will have to research this option for at least 2 years prior to making a decisicion.

Tony, Travis

8/24/2010 6:24:46 PM ETAre you kidding me? Now to OCP... waste of tax dollars this is fraud waste and abuse. All services... Pick a uniform one uniform one that can be worn deployed and back in home station

joe, afg

8/24/2010 5:09:04 PM ETJust get a camo pattern for our Airman BATTLE Uniform that is effective on the battlefield. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to have an effective camo pattern that works on the battlefield and still wear it for utility work on-base.

Comment on this news story by using the comment box below. All comments are reviewed before being posted. Content managers may edit them for grammar and length. While we encourage an open and back and forth dialog between our site visitors, content managers reserve the right to not publish comments that are considered personal attacks or insults. Messages that advertise a product, group or web site will not be posted.

We require a valid e-mail address to complete the process. However, we will not publish the e-mail address. If you are looking for a response to a question please use our feedback page to contact us. Click on the link on the footer of this page that says "Contact Us".

The opinions expressed in the following comments do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Air Force.